Every time I see a push to “standardize” one thing within the claims course of, I concentrate. Not as a result of requirements are unhealthy, however as a result of who writes the requirements usually determines who wins the dispute. Insurance coverage corporations have a military of insurance coverage lobbyists, and after I see them writing one thing about an esoteric subject reminiscent of forensic engineering requirements, I can guess whose agenda is being pushed.
Insurance coverage trade lobbyist Lisa Miller wrote an article in regards to the latest dialogue popping out of Florida relating to proposed guidelines for forensic engineers. The Florida Board of Skilled Engineers is contemplating a brand new rule chapter governing how engineers put together injury analysis experiences utilized in insurance coverage claims and litigation. On its face, this seems like a good suggestion. Who may very well be in opposition to moral, correct, and well-supported engineering opinions?
However as with most issues within the insurance coverage world, the satan shouldn’t be within the headline however within the particulars. There is no such thing as a query that issues exist in forensic engineering. The difficulty shouldn’t be imaginary. Engineers, like attorneys and adjusters, are typically accused of performing extra like advocates than impartial professionals. Experiences can differ broadly. Courts regularly see two certified engineers have a look at the identical roof and attain utterly reverse conclusions. That inconsistency frustrates everybody concerned.
Douglas Quinn began the American Policyholders Affiliation after being a sufferer of outcome-oriented insurance coverage professional experiences from Superstorm Sandy in 2012. I warned about this in a 2009 weblog put up titled Insurance coverage Firm Consultants Are Typically Biased and Consequence Oriented. I extra not too long ago addressed the problem in Can Policyholders Belief Insurance coverage Firm Retained Consultants?
So, it shouldn’t be stunning that one other state studied this precise subject. A 2006 Colorado job power finding out forensic engineering discovered that professional experiences have been more and more changing into advocacy items slightly than goal analyses. The engineering group itself acknowledged that one thing wanted enchancment.
What Colorado finally concluded is instructive, and I recommend that it ought to be thought-about by Florida’s skilled engineering group. Quite than imposing inflexible, prescriptive guidelines, it emphasised ethics, which incorporates objectivity, independence, and reliance on sound scientific rules whereas preserving skilled judgment. The reasoning was easy: engineering, particularly forensic engineering, can’t be diminished to a guidelines. Each construction, each storm, and each failure situation is totally different.
That brings us again to Florida. The proposed guidelines being mentioned are usually not merely about ethics. They go a lot additional. They impose detailed necessities, obligatory documentation, and particular methodologies. They seem to remodel engineering from a occupation grounded in judgment into one ruled by compliance. My suspicion is that the insurance coverage foyer and routinely retained insurance coverage firm engineers are pushing this agenda.
That shift and who’s pushing it issues. If you convert skilled judgment into regulatory checklists, you aren’t simply bettering consistency. As a substitute, you might be controlling outcomes. The query turns into whose outcomes are being pushed?
Giant engineering corporations, lots of which recurrently work for insurance coverage corporations taking in tens of thousands and thousands of {dollars} and, in some circumstances, a whole lot of thousands and thousands of {dollars} after any main disaster, are well-positioned to soak up these necessities. They already function with standardized processes, inside compliance programs, and vital assets.
Impartial engineers, then again, usually working for policyholders or entities not even concerned within the insurance coverage claims house, could discover these guidelines expensive, burdensome, and in some circumstances, unimaginable to fulfill. That is very true when the documentation merely doesn’t exist for older buildings. This financial actuality in regards to the engineering opinions costing extra to suit checklists alone ought to give pause.
There may be additionally a deeper scientific subject lurking beneath the floor. A lot of the talk facilities on how injury is evaluated and seems to notably middle on roof injury. Some engineers rely closely on laboratory testing and code-based thresholds to argue that sure wind speeds can not trigger injury. Others level out what appears apparent to anybody who has hung out in the actual world: roofs age, supplies degrade, set up varies, and storms are usually not neat, managed laboratory occasions. Wind is turbulent, cyclical, and sustained over time. All of us within the discipline have seen wind injury {that a} laboratory or code says can not occur with decrease wind speeds. I assume we can not imagine our mendacity eyes.
In different phrases, real-world circumstances hardly ever resemble laboratory circumstances.
If new guidelines elevate standardized testing and “accepted strategies” above skilled judgment, they threat favoring simplified fashions over complicated actuality. That doesn’t essentially produce extra correct conclusions. As a substitute, it produces extra constant ones. Consistency is totally different from reality.
There may be one other consequence that has not obtained sufficient consideration. These guidelines successfully shift energy away from the courts. Historically, disputes over engineering opinions are resolved by testimony, cross-examination, and credibility determinations beneath evidentiary requirements like Daubert. Judges and juries weigh competing opinions. Underneath the proposed framework, an engineer might current a report that’s accepted in court docket, but nonetheless face disciplinary motion for failing to adjust to a regulatory guidelines. That creates a parallel system through which compliance could matter greater than correctness.
The Colorado job power warned about this sort of overreach. Makes an attempt to rigidly outline requirements of care can “open up a Pandora’s field” and limit specialists in ways in which finally undermine justice slightly than market it. Engineering, like legislation, requires flexibility as a result of details differ. A one-size-fits-all rule hardly ever matches anybody nicely.
None of that is to say that reform is pointless. There are unhealthy experiences. There are exaggerated claims. There are, at occasions, opinions that stretch past what the proof helps. However the treatment shouldn’t be worse than the illness.
The actual subject shouldn’t be whether or not requirements ought to exist. It’s who defines them and the way they’re utilized. If requirements develop into so inflexible that they eradicate impartial judgment, improve prices for policyholders, and disproportionately profit the repeat gamers within the insurance coverage claims trade, then we’re not speaking about bettering engineering. We’re speaking about reshaping the enjoying discipline.
This can be a dialog price having overtly and never quietly in some rule making committee. That’s the reason I’m penning this weblog. The query I might pose to regulators, engineers, and policymakers is straightforward:
Are we making an attempt to enhance the seek for reality, or are we making an attempt to standardize the result?
These are usually not the identical factor.
The general public remark deadline is March 31, 2026, and I’ll ship this weblog put up for consideration. If you wish to submit a public remark about this vital subject, please e mail your feedback on to Board@fbpe.org. You may submit your feedback to proposed Chapter 61G15-38, Broken Constructionsutilizing the Florida Board of Engineering’s on-line remark kind.
Thought For The Day
“The check of a first-rate intelligence is the flexibility to carry two opposed concepts in thoughts on the identical time and nonetheless retain the flexibility to perform.”
— F. Scott Fitzgerald
